1.Historical Perspectives of the Korean Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery: Sung Nok Hong (1927–2017) Who Performed the First Coronary Artery Bypass Graft in Korea
Doo Yun LEE ; Hyo Chae PAIK ; Byung Chul CHANG ; Meyun-Shick KANG ; Kook-Yang PARK
Journal of Chest Surgery 2025;58(2):73-76
3.Erratum: Korean Gastric Cancer Association-Led Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):400-402
4.Comparison of Reduced Port Gastrectomy and Multiport Gastrectomy in Korea: Ad Hoc Analysis and Nationwide Survey on Gastric Cancer 2019
Duyeong HWANG ; Mira YOO ; Guan Hong MIN ; Eunju LEE ; So Hyun KANG ; Young Suk PARK ; Sang-Hoon AHN ; Hyung-Ho KIM ; Yun-Suhk SUH ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):330-342
Purpose:
This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes and current status of reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RLDG) compared with multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) based on a 2019 nationwide survey of surgical gastric cancer treatments by the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA).
Materials and Methods:
The study was conducted retrospectively from March to December 2020 using data from the 2019 KGCA nationwide survey database. To compare RLDG and MLDG based on age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histological type, tumor invasion, and lymph node metastasis, propensity score matching was performed.
Results:
Of the 14,076 registered patients with gastric cancer, the five-port approach was the most favored for multiport gastrectomy, accounting for 6,396 (70.9%) cases, followed by the four-port approach, with 1,462 (16.2%) cases. The single-port approach was used in 303 (3.4%) cases, the two-port approach in 95 (1.1%) cases, and the three-port approach in 731 (8.1%) cases. RLDG was performed in 805 patients (6.4%), MLDG was conducted in 4,831 patients (34.3%), and 804 patients were 1:1 matched in each group. The average operation time was shorter in the RLDG (168.2±49.1 min vs. 179.5±61.5 min, P<0.001). No significant difference was found in blood loss (84.8±115.9 cc vs. 75.5±119.6 cc, P=0.152), overall complication rates (11.3% vs. 13.1%, P=0.254), or complications ≥ to grade IIIa (3.2% vs. 4.4%, P=0.240).
Conclusions
This study revealed that RLDG is a safe and effective surgical option for gastric cancer with the potential to offer shorter operation times without increasing the risk of complications.
5.Prospective Multicenter Observational Study on Postoperative Quality of Life According to Type of Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer
Sung Eun OH ; Yun-Suhk SUH ; Ji Yeong AN ; Keun Won RYU ; In CHO ; Sung Geun KIM ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Hoon HUR ; Hyung-Ho KIM ; Sang-Hoon AHN ; Sun-Hwi HWANG ; Hong Man YOON ; Ki Bum PARK ; Hyoung-Il KIM ; In Gyu KWON ; Han-Kwang YANG ; Byoung-Jo SUH ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Tae-Han KIM ; Oh Kyoung KWON ; Hye Seong AHN ; Ji Yeon PARK ; Ki Young YOON ; Myoung Won SON ; Seong-Ho KONG ; Young-Gil SON ; Geum Jong SONG ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Jung-Min BAE ; Do Joong PARK ; Sol LEE ; Jun-Young YANG ; Kyung Won SEO ; You-Jin JANG ; So Hyun KANG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Joongyub LEE ; Hyuk-Joon LEE ;
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):382-399
Purpose:
This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
Materials and Methods:
A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.
Results:
Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064).
Conclusions
Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.
6.Discordance in Claudin 18.2Expression Between Primary and Metastatic Lesions in Patients With Gastric Cancer
Seung-Myoung SON ; Chang Gok WOO ; Ok-Jun LEE ; Sun Kyung LEE ; Minkwan CHO ; Yong-Pyo LEE ; Hongsik KIM ; Hee Kyung KIM ; Yaewon YANG ; Jihyun KWON ; Ki Hyeong LEE ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Hyo Yung YUN ; Hye Sook HAN
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(2):303-317
Purpose:
Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods.
Materials and Methods:
We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features.
Results:
CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues.
Conclusions
CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.
7.Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationLed Nationwide Survey on Surgically Treated Gastric Cancers in 2023
Dong Jin KIM ; Jeong Ho SONG ; Ji-Hyeon PARK ; Sojung KIM ; Sin Hye PARK ; Cheol Min SHIN ; Yoonjin KWAK ; Kyunghye BANG ; Chung-sik GONG ; Sung Eun OH ; Yoo Min KIM ; Young Suk PARK ; Jeesun KIM ; Ji Eun JUNG ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Bang Wool EOM ; Ki Bum PARK ; Jae Hun CHUNG ; Sang-Il LEE ; Young-Gil SON ; Dae Hoon KIM ; Sang Hyuk SEO ; Sejin LEE ; Won Jun SEO ; Dong Jin PARK ; Yoonhong KIM ; Jin-Jo KIM ; Ki Bum PARK ; In CHO ; Hye Seong AHN ; Sung Jin OH ; Ju-Hee LEE ; Hayemin LEE ; Seong Chan GONG ; Changin CHOI ; Ji-Ho PARK ; Eun Young KIM ; Chang Min LEE ; Jong Hyuk YUN ; Seung Jong OH ; Eunju LEE ; Seong-A JEONG ; Jung-Min BAE ; Jae-Seok MIN ; Hyun-dong CHAE ; Sung Gon KIM ; Daegeun PARK ; Dong Baek KANG ; Hogoon KIM ; Seung Soo LEE ; Sung Il CHOI ; Seong Ho HWANG ; Su-Mi KIM ; Moon Soo LEE ; Sang Hyun KIM ; Sang-Ho JEONG ; Yusung YANG ; Yonghae BAIK ; Sang Soo EOM ; Inho JEONG ; Yoon Ju JUNG ; Jong-Min PARK ; Jin Won LEE ; Jungjai PARK ; Ki Han KIM ; Kyung-Goo LEE ; Jeongyeon LEE ; Seongil OH ; Ji Hun PARK ; Jong Won KIM ; The Information Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):115-132
Purpose:
Since 1995, the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA) has been periodically conducting nationwide surveys on patients with surgically treated gastric cancer. This study details the results of the survey conducted in 2023.
Materials and Methods:
The survey was conducted from March to December 2024 using a standardized case report form. Data were collected on 86 items, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes. The results of the 2023 survey were compared with those of previous surveys.
Results:
Data from 12,751 cases were collected from 66 institutions. The mean patient age was 64.6 years, and the proportion of patients aged ≥71 years increased from 9.1% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2023. The proportion of upper-third tumors slightly decreased to 16.8% compared to 20.9% in 2019. Early gastric cancer accounted for 63.1% of cases in 2023.Regarding operative procedures, a totally laparoscopic approach was most frequently applied (63.2%) in 2023, while robotic gastrectomy steadily increased to 9.5% from 2.1% in 2014.The most common anastomotic method was the Billroth II procedure (48.8%) after distal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction (51.9%) after proximal gastrectomy in 2023.However, the proportion of esophago-gastrostomy with anti-reflux procedures increased to 30.9%. The rates of post-operative mortality and overall complications were 1.0% and 15.3%, respectively.
Conclusions
The results of the 2023 nationwide survey demonstrate the current status of gastric cancer treatment in Korea. This information will provide a basis for future gastric cancer research.
8.Gynecologic oncology in 2024:breakthrough trials and evolving treatment strategies for cervical, uterine corpus, and ovarian cancers
Sung Jong LEE ; Ji Geun YOO ; Jin Hwi KIM ; Jeong-Yeol PARK ; Jung-Yun LEE ; Yoo-Young LEE ; Dong Hoon SUH
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2025;36(1):e72-
This review summarized the results of clinical trials in 2024 that were believed to have a significant impact on clinical practice in the field of gynecologic oncology. The SHAPE trial, INTERLACE and KEYNOTE-A18 trials, and BEATcc and COMPASSION-16 trials were included in early-stage, locally advanced, and recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer, respectively. For uterine corpus cancer, updated survival data of the four trials (NRG-GY018, RUBY, AtTEnd, DUO-E) for endometrial cancer and the first survival data of LMS-04 trial for leiomyosarcoma were described. For ovarian cancer, the final overall survival results of PRIMA study were followed by DUO-O, ATHENA-combo, and FIRST-ENGOT-OV44 trial in different disease conditions. Finally, the results of DESTINY-PanTumor02, a basket trial of trastuzumab deruxtecan, were briefly addressed.
9.Clinical practice guidelines for ovarian cancer: an update to the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology guidelines
Banghyun LEE ; Suk-Joon CHANG ; Byung Su KWON ; Joo-Hyuk SON ; Myong Cheol LIM ; Yun Hwan KIM ; Shin-Wha LEE ; Chel Hun CHOI ; Kyung Jin EOH ; Jung-Yun LEE ; Yoo-Young LEE ; Dong Hoon SUH ; Yong Beom KIM
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2025;36(1):e69-
We updated the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of ovarian cancer as version 5.1. The ovarian cancer guideline team of the KSGO published announced the fifth version (version 5.0) of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of ovarian cancer in December 2023. In version 5.0, the selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on the data available up to December 2022.Therefore, we updated the guidelines version 5.0 with newly accumulated clinical data and added 5 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of ovarian cancer between 2023 and 2024. For each question, recommendation was provided together with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.
10.Clinical practice guidelines for cervical cancer: an update of the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology Guidelines
Ji Geun YOO ; Sung Jong LEE ; Eun Ji NAM ; Jae Hong NO ; Jeong Yeol PARK ; Jae Yun SONG ; So-Jin SHIN ; Bo Seong YUN ; Sung Taek PARK ; San-Hui LEE ; Dong Hoon SUH ; Yong Beom KIM ; Keun Ho LEE
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2025;36(1):e70-
We describe the updated Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of cervical cancer, version 5.1. The KSGO announced the fifth version of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer in March 2024. The selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on data available up to December 2022. Between 2023 and 2024, substantial findings from large-scale clinical trials and new advancements in cervical cancer research remarkably emerged. Therefore, based on the existing version 5.0, we updated the guidelines with newly accumulated clinical data and added 4 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of cervical cancer. For each question, recommendation was formulated with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail